How should Israel deal with the missile onslaught?

An army is a blunt weapon. Send it into a populated area where the enemy doesn't wear a uniform and innocents are going to die. This is happening right now in Gaza. Many people are quick to blame Israel for these deaths, calling them "unnecessary" or even "war crimes."

Lately, Israel has had to endure unguided missiles raining down on its territory. Since they are unguided, the people launching them, Hamas soldiers, aren't conducting surgical strikes. In fact, it appears they would be happy if they hit schools, hospitals, markets, and other heavily-populated targets.

So, imagine you are Israel. Do you have another way of attempting to put a stop to the daily barrage of missiles?

This is not an invitation to criticize the creation of Israel after WW2. It's not an invitation to criticize policies you think led up to Hamas.

I'm only asking what's the alternative to sending in its troops to attempt to drive Hamas out of Gaza?

I think the younger you are, the further away you from the purpose of Israel, which was to provide a safe place for Jews after The Holocaust. Prior to WW2, the Jews were a people without a country. The US has been committed to ensuring the existence of Israel. Fundamentalist Christians may have their stupid reasons for wanting to support Israel, but there are secular and historical reasons for the US to support Israel.

I agree Israel holds higher moral ground than Hamas, but not rock solid; the ground is higher but shaky. It is despicable to use human shields, but what is it to fire on human shields seemingly without compunction?

The main rule of war is to win it. Suppose we won WW2 by ignoring the so-called rules of war, winning it was still overall good, right? (And, in fact, the US did commit war crimes, such as the carpet bombing of Dresden.)

Suppose, instead, that we had lost the war and that now the world was dominated by the Nazis. What a feeble excuse for losing would it be to say, "We lost, but at least we didn't break any rules"?

That sort of philosophy applies much better to personal ethics than international war. Would any world leader tell his people, "You know, the only way to win this war is to do what it takes," but since that means breaking some rules, we're going to have to lose the war.

2) Might makes right.

It generally works out that way, doesn't it. Denying it denies reality.

But that's irrelevant. Suppose the world had given them that spot for some other reason (the cheapest real estate available), do you really think the situation would be much different with Jews and Palestinians living in peace?